"We understand the notions of both ethnic pride and hyphenated Americanism, but many of us are still bewildered about contradictory impulses: the emotional need to display Mexican decals on cars and hang Mexican flags on houses and businesses — or boo an American team at a soccer match — coupled with equally heated expressions of outrage that anyone might suggest that those who broke American law in coming to the United States would ever have to return where their hearts would “always be.” That paradox is the most disturbing — and ignored — aspect of the immigration debate: the contradictory impulse to fault the United States for a litany of sins (exploitation, racism, xenophobia, nativism) without commensurate attention to why any newcomer would wish to reside in a place that is so clearly culpable. Has anyone ever heard an immigration activist, as part of his argument for amnesty, explain why so many Mexicans do not like living in Mexico and must leave their homeland, or, alternatively, why the United States is such an attractive alternative that it demands such existential risks to reach it? How strange that most of the elites who resent ideas like the melting pot and assimilation are often those who most successfully have abandoned the protocols of the way life is lived in Mexico."

One of the many sad signs of our times is the way current immigration issues are discussed. A hundred years ago, immigration controversies were discussed in the context of innumerable facts about particular immigrant groups. Many of those facts were published in a huge, multi-volume 1911 study by a commission headed by Senator William P. Dillingham.

That and other studies of the time presented hard data on such things as which groups’ children were doing well in school and which were not, which groups had high crime rates or high rates of alcoholism, and which groups were over-represented among people living on the dole.

Such data and such differences still exist today. Immigrants from some countries are seldom on welfare, but immigrants from other countries often are. Immigrants from some countries are typically people with high levels of education and skills, while immigrants from other countries seldom have much schooling or skills.

Nevertheless, many of our current discussions of immigration issues focus on immigrants in general, as if they were abstract people in an abstract world. But the concrete differences among immigrants from different countries affect whether their coming here is good or bad for the American people.

The very thought of formulating immigration laws from the standpoint of what is best for the American people seems to have been forgotten by many who focus on how to solve the problems of illegal immigrants “living in the shadows.”

A recent column in the Wall Street Journal titled “What Would Milton Friedman Say?” tried to derive what the late Professor Friedman “would no doubt regard as the ideal outcome” as far as immigration laws are concerned.

Although I was once a student of Professor Friedman, I would never presume to speak for him. However, I will point out that he was a man with the rare combination of genius and common sense, and he published much empirical work in addition to the analytical work that won him a Nobel Prize. In short, concrete facts mattered to him.

It is hard to imagine Milton Friedman looking for “the ideal outcome” on immigration in the abstract. More than once he said, “The best is the enemy of the good,” which to me meant that attempts to achieve an unattainable ideal can prevent us from reaching good outcomes that are possible in practice.

Too much of our current immigration controversy is conducted in terms of abstract ideals, such as “We are a nation of immigrants.” Of course we are a nation of immigrants. But we are also a nation of people who wear shoes. Does it follow that we should admit anybody who wears shoes?

The immigrants of today are very different in many ways from those who arrived here a hundred years ago. Moreover, the society in which they arrive is different. The Wall Street Journal column ends by quoting another economist who said, “Better to build a wall around the welfare state than the country.”

But the welfare state is already here — and, far from having a wall built around it, the welfare state is expanding in all directions by leaps and bounds. We do not have a choice between the welfare state and open borders. Anything we try to do regarding immigration laws has to be done in the context of a huge welfare state that is already a major, inescapable fact of life.

Among other facts of life utterly ignored by many advocates of de facto amnesty is that the free international movement of people is different from free international trade in goods.

Buying cars or cameras from other countries is not the same as admitting people from those countries. Unlike inanimate objects, people have cultures, and not all cultures are compatible with the culture in this country, which has produced so many benefits for the American people for so long.

Not only the United States, but the Western world in general, has been discovering the hard way that admitting people with incompatible cultures is an irreversible decision with incalculable consequences. If we do not see that after recent terrorist attacks on the streets of Boston and London, when will we see it?

“Comprehensive immigration reform” means doing everything all together in a rush, without time to look before we leap, and basing our policies on abstract notions about abstract people.

Cruz: 'No Choice But to Oppose' Gang of Eight Legislation June 4, 2013

Ted Cruz (R., Texas) joined three Republican Senators on Monday in strongly denouncing the Gang of Eight immigration reform bill. In a letter to colleagues, Cruz, along with Senators Mike Lee (R., Utah), Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa), and Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.), wrote that the proposed legislation would “leave our borders unsecure and our immigration system deeply dysfunctional.”

The letter contains a detailed explaination of amendments offered during the bill’s markup in the Judiciary Committee that the senators argue would have significantly improved the legislation, but were rejected, as well as a number of amendments that were adopted, but simpy “exacerbated” the “already serious flaws” with the existing bill.

The letter criticizes the Gang of Eight directly, and the “deal” struck by its members to ensure that “the core provisions of the bill remain the same,” arguing that the legislation, like Obamacare, was “negotiated behind closed doors with special interests.”

The senators list the following reasons for their decision to oppose the bill:

It provides immediate legalization without securing the border. It rewards criminal aliens, absconders, and deportees, and undermines law enforcement. It contains extremely dangerous national-security loopholes. It facilitates fraud in our immigraiton system. It creates no real penalties for illegal immigrants and rewards them with entitlements. It delays for years the implementation of E-Verify. It does not fix our legal-immigration system. It advanced through a process predicated on a deal struck before markup. It rewards those who have broken our laws by offering a special path to citizenship.

The senators stress that they do not oppose the concept of immigration reform; they just cannot support the Gang’s proposal. ”We need immigration reform, but the American people deserve better than a 1,000-page bill that makes our immigration system more complex and less accountable without truly ensuring border security,” they write. “[The proposed bill] fails to deliver anything more than the same empty promises Washington has been making for 30 years.”

Senator Cruz was on Levin basically stating the proposed sell out bill gives Napolitano discretion on enforcement which means essentially no enforcement and a sell out to Democrats. Even Black groups are against it. They realize it hurts their workers.

The bill should have been amended to address most of these objections. Now all we have is a bill that has no chance in the House, little chance in the Senate, wouldn't solve the problem if passed, and keeps the issue on the table for the Democrats. I hope Rubio votes against it and joins a different gang.

Rove and the other establishment Republicans to spend 100K promoting the immigration bill from the 8. More or less, if it is not approved Obama will simply grant amesty.Rubio reported to speak to Latinos saying we need immigration "reform" first then we secure the border. That's it folks. All of here legally citizen or not have just been sold out.

$100,000 is not very much money in politics or national advertising. The Obama campaign just spent something approaching a billion on reelection. That is not a very impressive endorsement list IMHO. Someone has been running radio ads promoting a conservative pro-immigration agenda on conservative radio, Americans for a Conservative Direction. Wouldn't you know they are actually liberals who are paying for the message to divide conservatives: http://www.alipac.us/f12/mark-levin-exposes-liberal-front-group-americans-conservative-direction-277982/ Maybe I will start the group, Liberals calling on Obama and Biden to step down and go away or Liberals for a low, across the board, flat tax.

The current Senate Republican reform strategy of Rubio and others is to vote for the bad bill, shift the focus to a Republican bill in the House and hope to fix it in conference. I think the House will pass a pretty good bill. Can anyone imagine Schumer, Durbin and Harry Reid caving in conference? The issue ends somewhere near it started with nothing passed and both sides saying the other is blocking the road to reform. The point from the beginning was simply that is a slightly better visual for the election than refusing to deal with it at all.

In the 2014 elections, not in Washington but in places like Montana where the Max Baucus open seat will be contested, we will find out what the people think.

My second post on this thread today. I am an Ann Coulter fan again. This is the best piece I have read of hers. Icouldn't agree more.

My thoughts first:

1) Republican party is run by fools. Rove has got to go. The Bushes are done. Great Americans I like them all but H gave us Clinton and W gave us even worse.

2) The Latino vote after Reagan's pardon went DOWN! So why will it work now. It won't. Most are low wage and like most low wage workers Anglo or not they will vote for the party of government checks.

3) Polls show Latinos are more interested in jobs - not more competition. The very same argument I make to Blacks. Why the hell are Blacks voting for a party that wants to open the more borders for foreigners to compete with them and drive down wages?

4) I think Republicans should start making these points. Do we really want to flood the job market with more workers particularly low wage? Overflow our schools systems even more?

5) Get rid of this guy Rove - make Caddell chief if he will convert to our party. Where did this guy Rove come from anyway and why does he seem to have so much influence. Fox dumped Morris after his wrong call on the election yet we see Rove being asked about his opinion every time I turn on the tube. OK he got a guy who couldn't string two sentences together President twice. Good job. What have you done lately?

*****Ann Coulter - June 12, 2013 - IF THE GOP IS THIS STUPID, IT DESERVES TO DIEHome My Life Book a Speech Links Forum Follow Me on Twitter Archives IF THE GOP IS THIS STUPID, IT DESERVES TO DIE

June 12, 2013

Democrats terrify Hispanics into thinking they'll be lynched if they vote for Republicans, and then turn around and taunt Republicans for not winning a majority of the Hispanic vote.

This line of attack has real resonance with our stupidest Republicans. (Proposed Republican primary targets: Sens. Kelly Ayotte, Jeff Flake, Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio.) Which explains why Republicans are devoting all their energy to slightly increasing their share of the Hispanic vote while alienating everyone else in America.

It must be fun for liberals to manipulate Republicans into focusing on hopeless causes. Why don't Democrats waste their time trying to win the votes of gun owners?

As journalist Steve Sailer recently pointed out, the Hispanic vote terrifying Republicans isn't that big. It actually declined in 2012. The Census Bureau finally released the real voter turnout numbers from the last election, and the Hispanic vote came in at only 8.4 percent of the electorate -- not the 10 percent claimed by the pro-amnesty crowd.

The sleeping giant of the last election wasn't Hispanics; it was elderly black women, terrified of media claims that Republicans were trying to suppress the black vote and determined to keep the first African-American president in the White House.

Contrary to everyone's expectations, 10 percent more blacks voted in 2012 compared to 2008, even beating white voters, the usual turnout champions. Eligible black voters turned out at rate of 66.2 percent, compared to 64.1 percent of eligible white voters. Only 48 percent of all eligible Hispanic voters went to the polls.

No one saw this coming, which is probably why Gallup had Romney up by 5 points before Hurricane Sandy hit, and up by 1 point in its last pre-election poll after the hurricane. Only two groups voted in larger numbers in 2012 compared to 2008: blacks aged 45-64, and blacks over the age of 65 -- mostly elderly black women.

In raw numbers, nearly twice as many blacks voted as Hispanics, and nine times as many whites voted as Hispanics. (Ninety-eight million whites, 18 million blacks and 11 million Hispanics.)

So, naturally, the Republican Party's entire battle plan going forward is to win slightly more votes from 8.4 percent of the electorate by giving them something they don't want.

As Byron York has shown, even if Mitt Romney had won 70 percent of the Hispanic vote, he still would have lost. No Republican presidential candidate in at least 50 years has won even half of the Hispanic vote.

In the presidential election immediately after Reagan signed an amnesty bill in 1986, the Republican share of the Hispanic vote actually declined from 37 percent to 30 percent -- and that was in a landslide election for the GOP. Combined, the two Bush presidents averaged 32.5 percent of the Hispanic vote -- and they have Hispanics in their family Christmas cards.

John McCain, the nation's leading amnesty proponent, won only 31 percent of the Hispanic vote, not much more than anti-amnesty Romney's 27 percent. Amnesty is a gift to employers, not employees.

The (pro-amnesty) Pew Research Hispanic Center has produced poll after poll showing that Hispanics don't care about amnesty. In a poll last fall, Hispanic voters said they cared more about education, jobs and health care than immigration. They even care more about the federal budget deficit than immigration! (To put that in perspective, the next item on their list of concerns was "scratchy towels.")

Also, note that Pew asked about "immigration," not "amnesty." Those Hispanics who said they cared about immigration might care about it the way I care about it -- by supporting a fence and E-Verify.

Who convinced Republicans that Hispanic wages aren't low enough and what they really need is an influx of low-wage workers competing for their jobs?

Maybe the greedy businessmen now running the Republican Party should talk with their Hispanic maids sometime. Ask Juanita if she'd like to have seven new immigrants competing with her for the opportunity to clean other people's houses, so that her wages can be dropped from $20 an hour to $10 an hour.

A wise Latina, A.J. Delgado, recently explained on Mediaite.com why amnesty won't win Republicans the Hispanic vote -- even if they get credit for it. Her very first argument was: "Latinos will resent the added competition for jobs."

But rich businessmen don't care. Big Republican donors -- and their campaign consultants -- just want to make money. They don't care about Hispanics, and they certainly don't care what happens to the country. If the country is hurt, I don't care, as long as I am doing better! This is the very definition of treason.

Hispanic voters are a small portion of the electorate. They don't want amnesty, and they're hopeless Democrats. So Republicans have decided the path to victory is to flood the country with lots more of them!

It's as if Republicans convinced Democrats to fixate on banning birth control to win more pro-life voters. This would be great for Republicans because Democrats will never win a majority of pro-life voters, and about as many pro-lifers care about birth control as Hispanics care about amnesty.

But that still wouldn't be as idiotic as what Republicans are doing because, according to Gallup, pro-lifers are nearly half of the electorate. Hispanics are only 8.4 percent of the electorate.

And it still wouldn't be as stupid as the GOP pushing amnesty, because banning birth control wouldn't create millions more voters who consistently vote against the Democrats.

Listening to Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus burble a few weeks ago on "Fox News Sunday" about how amnesty is going to push the Republicans to new electoral heights, one is reminded of Democratic pollster Pat Caddell's reason for refusing to become a Republican: No matter how enraged he gets at Democratic corruption, he says he can't bear to join such a stupid party as the GOP.

Coulter makes good points, especially the one CCP points out, that amnesty last time did not increase vote share for Republicans and does not work for McCain. Other factors abound, but a very strong point. That said, the choice isn't court Hispanic versus court blacks who went 98% for Obama. It is more like, IMHO, do what is right and start messaging better to all of them.

Coulter and others, Mirengoff at Powerline who has become obsessed with ripping Marco Rubio, are great dividers. Yet the work of writing a good bill where the gang of 8 failed still remains. The House needs to write a good bill and let the Obama and Harry Reid be the obstructors. Take some of what gang of 8 came up with like a 14 year delay with no federal benefits and then cut out the BS and add border security, real border security. Answer the family ties question too, where the numbers seem to jump from 11 to 40 million. If half the 11 million take the pathway, work and don't take federal benefits (or state), we are in good shape as a country. If a third world country floods us, we are not.

Let a good bill from the House live or die on the obstruction or cooperation of Democrats, then move on with Hispanics and talk about empowering an entrepreneur economy and educate people on how economic freedom is world's only successful welfare system.

A successful Republican Presidential candidate in 2016 needs to gain ground in ALL these groups and will need to point how he was both fair and tough on immigration to both sides of the debate. To the extent that Rubio is wrong on details, I am not seeing the critics step forward with better plans, just do more of the same and expect a better result.---An earlier point was stop the hiring and they will stop coming. My clarification would be to stop the compensation for not working and they will stop coming for the wrong reasons.

Thomas Sowell addresses a question brought up here regarding hiring and immigration. My view, mentioned often, is that our worker 'shortage' is completely intertwined with the reality that we pay more than 100 million not to work.

Regarding getting tough on employers, simply require employers to inform the government who they are hiring along with copies of whatever documents one is required to present. Law enforcement is government's job. With notification of hiring, they will know where to find them. A similar question comes to landlords. Am I supposed to rent to illegals or discriminate against them and risk a far greater penalty from government? What I know is that I am not qualified to discern the difference between legal and false documents and should not and cannot ask Hispanics for documents that I don't require of Scandinavian-Americans.-----Economics vs. 'Need'

By Thomas Sowell - June 11, 2013

One of the most common arguments for allowing more immigration is that there is a "need" for foreign workers to do "jobs that Americans won't do," especially in agriculture.

One of my most vivid memories of the late Armen Alchian, an internationally renowned economist at UCLA, involved a lunch at which one of the younger members of the economics department got up to go get some more coffee. Being a considerate sort, the young man asked, "Does anyone else need more coffee?"

"Need?" Alchian said loudly, in a cutting tone that clearly conveyed his dismay and disgust at hearing an economist using such a word.

A recent editorial on immigration in the Wall Street Journal brought back the memory of Alchian's response, when I read the editorial's statement about "the needs of an industry in which labor shortages can run as high as 20 percent" -- namely agriculture.

Although "need" is a word often used in politics and in the media, from an economic standpoint there is no such thing as an objective and quantifiable "need."

You might think that we all obviously need food to live. But however urgent it may be to have some food, nevertheless beyond some point food becomes not only unnecessary but even counterproductive and dangerous. Widespread obesity among Americans shows that many have already gone too far with food.

This is not just a matter of semantics, but of economics. In the real world, employers compete for workers, just as they compete for customers for their output. And workers go where there is more demand for them, as expressed by what employers offer to pay.

Farmers may wish for more farm workers, just as any of us may wish for anything we would like to have. But that is wholly different from thinking that some third party should define what we desire as a "need," much less expect government policy to meet that "need."

In a market economy, when farmers are seeking more farm workers, the most obvious way to get them is to raise the wage rate until they attract enough people away from alternative occupations -- or from unemployment.

With the higher labor costs that this would entail, the number of workers that farmers "need" would undoubtedly be less than what it would have been if there were more workers available at lower wage rates, such as immigrants from Mexico.

It is no doubt more convenient and profitable to the farmers to import workers at lower pay than to pay American workers more. But bringing in more immigrants is not without costs to other Americans, including both financial costs in a welfare state and social costs, of which increased crime rates are just one.

Some advocates of increased immigration have raised the specter of higher food prices without foreign farm workers. But the price that farmers receive for their produce is usually a fraction of what the consumers pay at the supermarket. And what the farmers pay the farm workers is a fraction of what the farmer gets for the produce.

In other words, even if labor costs doubled, the rise in prices at the supermarket might be barely noticeable.

What are called "jobs that Americans will not do" are in fact jobs at which not enough Americans will work at the current wage rate that some employers are offering. This is not an uncommon situation. That is why labor "shortages" lead to higher wage rates. A "shortage" is no more quantifiable than a "need," when you ignore prices, which are crucial in a market economy. To discuss "need" and "shortage" while ignoring prices -- in this case, wages -- is especially remarkable in a usually market-savvy publication like the Wall Street Journal.

Often shortages have been predicted in various occupations -- and yet never materialized. Why? Because the pay in those occupations rose, causing more people to go into those occupations and causing employers to reduce how many people they "need" at the higher pay rates.

Virtually every kind of "work that Americans will not do" is in fact work that Americans have done for generations. In many cases, most of the people doing that work today are Americans. And there are certainly many unemployed Americans available today, without bringing in more foreign workers to meet farmers' "needs."

The 40 million is a number from surveys done of Mexicans who would like to come to the US.

Do we know how many from other countries would like to come here?

I agree not to bash Rubio. I don't agree with not bashing Rove who seems to have the power to run things HIS way or the highway. He is the guy who doesn't listen.

As for the Bushes they are misguided. They don't get we are in a ideological battle for the future of this country. They play they are so high minded and nice and compromising. Yet the Dems don't paly that way and they are slowly winning the battle. The Bush philosophy is a losing philosophy. So is Rove's it seems to me.

As for asking employers to as for an ID card before hiring someone doesn't seem like too much to ask. If an employer makes a reasonable effort to check ID that should be enough. He/SHe can't be blamed for being presented a false ID.

Doug do you let anyone rent from you without their name, maybe previous address, or their employer?

The government cannot do it alone when we are talking millions and millions of people here illegally. (Even if they wanted to; which they don't).

As for those already here and entrenched - ok hey can stay - but no family members being allowed in after them. They can never be citizens for breaking the law the second they walked in over the boarder.

As for the children there is really only one choice. They stay and are citizens. They were born here.

Now we can put this bill on a single page or two and burn in effigy the present 1000 page boondoggle of a bill with all sorts or payoffs hidden in it somewhere. And so confusing so only armies of lawyers can figure it out and the politicians don't even know what's in it. Let alone us.

With regards to verifying who people are doctors offices do it all the time. Usually they ask for insurance card and SSN. I absolutely do not agree that it is our business what a person's SSN is. I really don't know how that got started and seems to have become a standard.

With the HIPPA laws being so strict about privacy it is probably reasonable we ask for some ID to ensure a person is who they say they are.

The 50%??? of us who pay taxes and work and who hire knowingly illegals for our gardens, our maids, our Kentucky Fried Chickens, our farms, our nannies. We are just as much to blame as the those who go on the dole.

Maybe some of all the above would be avoided if...

If government would simply make a simple and fair and lower across the board tax system, freaking simply enforce law already on the books and make them simpler and easier for everyone to understand maybe some of the stealing, the cheating, the graft, the skimming, the bribery, etc. Maybe just SOME of it would go away.

Does anyone follow what I am saying? And I don't mean that in a confrontational way. I am not sure if I am expressing my ideology my thoughts very well.

I would like a leader who wants a free and fair society with simple ethical and legal and clear cut boundaries. One in which people are not encourage to cheat , those who do are held accountable (including the 1%).

The private sector cannot be allowed to run rampant or we get robber barons. But government cannot operate on its own or we get tyranny.

Neither the left or the right seem to have the right balance. NOR does the misguided middle which is all about "compromise".

There is another path. Another way to get there. The Tea Party is closer to it, but not completely.

The status quo combines complex laws with almost no enforcement. That and negotiating with weasels makes finding a solution next to impossible.

"we can put this bill on a single page or two and burn in effigy the present 1000 page boondoggle of a bill with all sorts or payoffs hidden in it"

When it started looking like Obamacare, I knew they had it wrong. All those pages and it doesn't include guaranteed border security? Back to the drawing board. Don't pretend you will negotiate better later after giving up all leverage.

"Doug do you let anyone rent from you without their name, maybe previous address, or their employer?"

If 50% don't work, isn't asking where you work discriminatory? By law, unlike the government, I have to treat everyone equally so I try to get a consistent and thorough amount of information from each person. We ask for a 5 year history of where they have lived and worked, or other information to back up who they are and verify income. I look to see if the landlord reference actually owns the property. (Unlike state voting law that requires nothing.) The worst people come in without putting their names on the application or lease. Then, laws that make eviction nearly impossible make enforcement of the lease nearly impossible too. In the case of non-citizens, will the same government who approves and pays non-citizens public assistance back me up when I deny them housing? I don't think so. Non-citizens easily get drivers licenses in MN, by either disclosing their status or by simply checking the citizen box and getting it on their license.

"The 40 million is a number from surveys done of Mexicans who would like to come to the US."

40 million is also within the range of what some predict is the total that would get in under reform, mostly by way of the friends and family plan. Reform must include a closing of that opening, starting perhaps with an amendment to clarify that no rights are created just by giving birth while visiting. If most of your family is in, uh, Canada, let's say, and uniting your family is the top priority, then go home and be with your family. If you left your family by choice then so be it. We didn't split your family and we don't owe you more tickets.

"Non-citizens easily get drivers licenses in MN, by either disclosing their status or by simply checking the citizen box and getting it on their license."

What a joke! On us.

"If most of your family is in, uh, Canada, let's say, and uniting your family is the top priority, then go home and be with your family"

Exactly. People come here and have babies ok the baby is a citizen by having been born here but the parents never will be. Ok you can stay with your baby in this country but you will never have the privileges of citizenship and never be eligible for any government benefits. No one is forcing you to stay and no one forced you to come here.

I can hear it now - oh but your only hurting the children. What about the country we are leaving to our children and those who came here legally.

We don't even have leaders who are standing up to this. Only those who are appeasing.

BTW, what is this gay marriage amendment doing in an immigration bill? I want this abuse of us to stop.

America's Assimilating HispanicsThe evidence shows they are following the path of earlier immigrants.

As immigration reform moves through Congress, one claim by opponents is that this time immigration is different because the country's latest arrivals aren't assimilating. On the contrary, however, the evidence overwhelmingly shows that today's immigrants are acculturating and moving up the economic ladder like previous generations.

The media's tendency to report "averages" in educational attainment, English-language skills, income and other traditional measures of assimilation can make it difficult to determine whether immigrants are making gains. Since Latino immigration continues, averaging together the poverty rates or homeownership levels of large numbers of people who arrived recently with those who have been here for decades can provide a skewed view of progress.

Measuring assimilation properly requires following the same immigrants over generations. And the good news is that longitudinal studies that take this approach show that Latino immigrants have made gains similar to other groups who preceded them.

Consider the claim that Hispanic immigrants are rejecting English in favor of a separate Spanish-speaking culture. Census data from 2005 show that only one-third of immigrants in the country for less than a decade speak English well, but that number climbs to nearly three-quarters for those here for 30 years or more.

Enlarge ImageimageimageGetty Images

A 2007 Pew study of 14,000 Latino adults showed that while just 23% of immigrants report being able to speak English very well, "fully 88% of their U.S.-born adult children report that they speak English very well. Among later generations of Hispanic adults, the figure rises to 94%."

All of this follows the traditional three-generation model of linguistic assimilation that characterized European immigrants in the last century. Typically, English is the dominant language of the second generation, and by the fourth generation fewer than a quarter can still speak the immigrant tongue.

Educational progress among Latino immigrants is also evident, and it too fits a pattern shown by previous ethnic newcomers. Nearly half (47%) of foreign-born Hispanics lack a high-school diploma, but that number falls to 17% among their offspring. And 21% of second-generation Hispanics are college graduates, compared with 11% of foreign-born Hispanics residing in the U.S.Related Video

Latino immigrants who have been in the U.S. for three decades or more are also more likely than recent arrivals to own a home, live in a family with an income above the federal poverty line and marry outside of their ethnic group—all common measures of assimilation. According to 2012 Census data, the median household income for second-generation Hispanics is $48,400, versus $34,600 for Hispanic immigrants and $58,200 for all groups.

A Pew report from February on Hispanic and Asian immigrants—who comprise about 70% of foreign born adults in the U.S.—found that the second generation of both groups is more likely than immigrants to have friends outside of their ethnic or racial group, to say their group gets along well with others and to think of themselves as a "typical American." Pew also noted that "second-generation Hispanics and Asians place more importance than does the general public on hard work and career success."

Like many Mexicans today, Italian immigrants who came in large numbers in the late 1800s and early 1900s valued work over education. Italy had one of the highest illiteracy rates in Europe at the time—62% in 1871—and illiteracy was especially pronounced in southern Italy, where most Italian-Americans trace their ancestry. In 1910, just 31% of Italian immigrants aged 14 to 18 were enrolled in school, compared to 48% of the Irish and 56% of the Jews. Today, Italian-Americans exceed national averages in educational attainment and income.

Fears that the newest arrivals are overrunning America and changing it for the worse have a long pedigree. "Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs," wrote Benjamin Franklin in 1751.

Big Ben wasn't paranoid, but he was living with a flood of German immigrants into Philadelphia. Street signs were printed in German, and German-language newspapers proliferated. In 18th-century America, you could travel from Pennsylvania to Georgia and speak only German.

It's true that many on the left promote a separate Hispanic identity, but their impact is small compared to the great assimilating maelstrom of American culture and economic life. The stultifying attractions of the welfare state are also a barrier to upward mobility, but that is best addressed with reforms, not by limiting immigration. Despite fears and much bad data, immigrants continue to be the American asset they have always been.

"The Alien bill proposed in the Senate is a monster that must forever disgrace its parents." --James MadisonEditorial Exegesis

"The Senate on Tuesday voted against tough border security measures that it promised to put in place years ago. Tell us again why we should trust them to secure the borders later after granting amnesty first. ... In 2006, Congress passed the Secure Fence Act, requiring 700 miles of double-tiered fencing get built along the Mexican border. ... A year later, Congress quietly passed a law that largely neutered the fence requirement, and today, only 36 miles of it have been built. ... Since the Senate is desperate to get amnesty done as soon as possible, it can't let little inconveniences like securing the border or tracking people coming into the country get in the way. As we've said many times in this space, border security has to come before any effort is made to grant legal status to today's 11 million illegals. For good reason: Failure to do so will only encourage more to cross the border, in the justifiable belief that once here they, too, will get citizenship without having to wait in line. We're already seeing illegal crossings increase even before the law is passed. ... History already proves that putting the carrot ahead of the stick doesn't work. The 1986 immigration law also promised to close gaps in the border in exchange for amnesty. But as soon as soon as Democrats got amnesty on the books, they started putting roadblocks in the way of enforcement. The result was that just three years after the bill's passage, illegal border crossings had actually increased, and today the number in the country illegally has climbed fourfold. A few days ago, [Senator Marco] Rubio said immigration reform had to ensure 'that we will never have another wave of illegal immigration again.' But with the Senate turning down every meaningful border security measure, that's the only thing we can guarantee will happen again if this bill becomes law." --Investor's Business Daily

Coulter is right; The republicans are digging their own graves as a party.

Appeasement is not the way to go. There is another path. A party can reach out to minorities and women and all Americans without having to try to out-bribe aka the Democrats.

I admit, competing with the bribing voters with tax payer money strategy would be tough but I am convinced is another way.

Appeasement is simply slowing the demise of America not stopping it.

OTOH, I am certain the Bamster WILL grant the illegals amnesty before he leaves office anyway. So I guess one COULD argue the gang of fools folly is the lesser of two evils so to speak.

I keep coming back to the conclusion the only chance for a resurrection of the Republican party is a big crash. Of course if big enough there is no guarantee what will come up from the rubble. It could even be more fascist/socialist guising as populism.

"The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family. The opinion advanced in the Notes on Virginia is undoubtedly correct, that foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity; and to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived; or if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism?"--Alexander Hamilton, From the New York Evening Post: an Examination of the President's Message, Continued, No. VIII, 1802

****foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity; and to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived;****

The immigrants to the US in the past did come here for freedom and opportunity. They didn't expect benefits. Some still don't. Hey but if one major party keeps offering them free money courtesy of taxpayers, why not vote for them?

The immigrants are not the same today as they were. But didn't they always usually vote Democrat?

Appeasement is what we do - on everything - we are just arguing about where to draw those lines. (sad face) Purity on issues is how we lose. There is something in between that is good enough and we need to find it.

On immigration, the idea behind a comprehensive agreement is that both sides win. Undocumented Democrats get legalization and American citizens get security and sovereignty going forward. The bill as it stands does not address what went wrong on previous attempts.

The gang is taking legalization without security verification, and that is a move away from a comprehensive agreement, not toward it. Having McCain and his sidekick on the wrong side is annoying. Having Rubio on the wrong side is a major problem.

I favor the concept of negotiating a tough deal. I favor security first, I favor a standard for border security that seeks to stop terror threats from crossing our borders, not just innocent workers. I favor the 10-14 year delay. I favor some resolution of the family member problem that does not add tens of millions to the numbers.

We are left where we started. Dems get credit for advancing the plight of the illegals, keep legal Hispanics in their fold, and keep the issue alive by failing to negotiate all the way to a comprehensive deal. Republicans get blamed for no deal. The truth should be the opposite. The Republicans should be out front advancing a fair and tough bill, and expose Dems as the ones who are moving away from a comprehensive solution by refusing to what went wrong when the 1986 and 2006 legislation passed, but required border security did not follow.

Immigration Tests Political BordersJune 21, 2013 "Born in other countries, yet believing you could be happy in this, our laws acknowledge, as they should do, your right to join us in society, conforming, as I doubt not you will do, to our established rules." --Thomas Jefferson

Seven years ago, Congress mandated building 700 miles of fence along the border, though it watered down the requirement a year later. Today, according to The Washington Times, "The border now has 651 miles of barriers, but only 36 miles are at least double-tier fencing. Another 316 miles are single-tier pedestrian fencing, and the rest -- 299 miles -- are vehicle barriers that still allow wildlife, and people, to cross." No wonder John McCain ran a pandering 2010 senatorial ad growling that we need to "complete the danged fence."

The current Senate -- with faux border hawk McCain's help -- rejected several amendments to the Gang of Eight legislation aimed to tighten control of the border. Sen. Tom Cornyn (R-TX) proposed an amendment that failed last week, and two offered by Sens. John Thune (R-SD) and Rand Paul (R-KY) likewise failed this week. All three amendments sought to re-establish the border fence or make other security measures preconditions to granting legal status to illegal aliens.

Another amendment by Sens. John Hoeven (R-ND) and Bob Corker (R-TN) may gain enough support for passage by replacing enforcement "triggers" and benchmarks for legalization with 20,000 more Border Patrol agents (doubling the current number), more high-tech surveillance equipment, full implementation of E-Verify and completing the "danged fence." The bottom line, however, is that no serious enforcement benchmarks are going to fly in a Democrat-controlled Senate, and Gang members want to reach 70 votes -- a threshold that will necessitate watering down the bill or loading it with security provisions that won't be enforced. And after the bait-and-switch history of the 1986 immigration reform, why should we believe their promises now?

Then again, illegal immigration has slowed since the last time the issue boiled over -- the Border Patrol says illegal entry is at a 40-year low. Some of that is due to better (not satisfactory) enforcement, but most is a result of the abysmal Obama economy. No jobs means few immigrants. Don't complain that Obama never solved anything.The House is another matter, too. Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) says he won't bring a bill to the floor that doesn't have majority Republican support. Whatever the Senate bill may be it doesn't meet that standard, so we'll see if Boehner is true to his word.

In related news, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports that the Senate bill will (a) reduce the flow of illegals by just 25 percent, (b) allow for 46 million legal immigrants in the next 20 years, (c) cause wages to decline and unemployment to rise in the next few years, (d) expand ObamaCare spending by $112 billion over the next decade, and yet (e) reduce the federal deficit by $197 billion in the first decade and $700 billion in the following decade. First, we proffer the disclaimer "garbage in, garbage out." In other words, CBO's analyses reflects only the information members of Congress give it. And this fantastic deficit reduction calls to mind similar projections for ObamaCare, which were nowhere close to reality.

It is plausible that more tax revenue from newly legalized workers would benefit deficit numbers in the short term, but expanding the bottom of the Ponzi pyramid is not a permanent solution to our fiscal problems. The bill for these workers' Social Security, for example, would erase any near-term gain. Furthermore, Congress is perfectly adept at spending new revenue quickly. It wasn't that long ago that the Heritage Foundation estimated the cost of the Senate bill could be $6.3 trillion, and -- call us crazy -- we're inclined to trust Heritage more than Congress.

"For some Republicans, border security has become a ruse to kill reform. The border could be defended by the 10th Mountain Division and Claymore antipersonnel mines and it wouldn't be secure enough."...[Fewer crossings] "Some of this decline is surely due to the lousy U.S. job market"

- 'ya think?

"... but some results from the border security mobilization that began in the 1990s and really got going after 2006. Today more than 21,000 agents patrol the border. Enforcement spending is up more than 50% in a decade for everything from 650 miles of fencing to military aircraft, marine vessels, drones, surveillance equipment, infrared camera towers and detention centers."

- 650 miles of fencing? Is it a fence or a BARRIER?

Pres. Obama made a similar claim and PolitiFact judged it "Mostly False":

"legislation was passed [2006] to build a 700-mile double-layer border fence along the southwest border. This is a promise that has not been kept. Today, according to staff at the Department of Homeland Security, just 5 percent of the double-layer fencing is complete, only 36.3 miles."

This is true, but the law was amended after the change in congress to give DHS discretion on what fence to build and their discretion was to stop building the double layer fence that was called for in the 2006 law.

The WSJ ran an editorial today again belittling the opponents for their petty concern over border security. As I pointed out previously, their own characterization of the security status was already quite misleading. They are entitled to their opinion, but mis-characterizing facts, cheapening the motives of the opponents, showing reverence to Chuck Schumer and dividing the conservative movement are not ways to build a coalition of any value.

"At least the Corker-Hoeven plan has the virtue of smoking out the politicians who have been using the "border security first" demand as cover for their real objection, which is to immigration per se."

Good grief. Did they forget about 1986 and 2006 or do they really not know the Lucy holding the ball for Charlie Brown history of this? They are confusing legal and illegal immigration, just as they accuse opponents of doing so. If the security is so certain, why not security first - just this once? If the bill is so good, why not let us read it before demanding support or calling us all anti-immigrant?

To WSJ: Taking cheap shots at your readership is not how you will get immigration reform or subscriptions renewed.

The Supreme Court’s ruling that the federal Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional should immediately open up immigration benefits to same-sex partners in states where their unions are recognized as marriages.

The 5-4 decision ruled that federal benefits pertaining to marriage couples cannot be denied to same-sex couples who are married, and that states can recognize those marriages. The issue at hand was an inheritance case, but analysts said the ruling signals the same principle applies to all federal benefits such as Social Security and taxes.

“This is a huge day not only for the LGBT movement, but also for the immigrant rights’ movement,” said Jorge Gutierrez, who leads the Queer Undocumented Immigrant Project for United We Dream, a group of young illegal immigrants. “This Supreme Court decision affirms that all [trespassers] should be treated fairly and with justice.”

One strategy for immigration the House could use would be to pass the good parts of the Senate bill individually instead of passing any version of comprehensive reform. This would prevent the Senate from rolling over the House in conference committee for a bad deal. If the 'gang' and the Senate are serious about security first, pass security first. They aren't and they won't, so call the question. If they are serious about building 700 miles of double fence, build it. Same for e-verify and visa anti-over-stay enforcement. Then come back for legalization.

Kill the Bill - July 9, 2013Passing any version of the Gang of Eight’s bill would be worse than passing nothing.

We are conservatives who have differed in the past on immigration reform, with Kristol favorably disposed toward it and Lowry skeptical. But the Gang of Eight has brought us into full agreement: Their bill, passed out of the Senate, is a comprehensive mistake. House Republicans should kill it without reservation.

There is no case for the bill, and certainly no urgency to pass it. During the debate over immigration in 2006–07, Republican rhetoric at times had a flavor that communicated a hostility to immigrants as such. That was a mistake, and it did political damage. This time has been different. The case against the bill has been as responsible as it has been damning.

It’s become clear that you can be pro-immigrant and pro-immigration, and even favor legalization of the 11 million illegal immigrants who are here and increases in some categories of legal immigration – and vigorously oppose this bill.

The bill’s first fatal deficiency is that it doesn’t solve the illegal-immigration problem. The enforcement provisions are riddled with exceptions, loopholes, and waivers. Every indication is that they are for show and will be disregarded, just as prior notional requirements to build a fence or an entry/exit visa system have been – and just as President Obama has recently announced he’s ignoring aspects of Obamacare that are inconvenient to enforce on schedule. Why won’t he waive a requirement for the use of E-Verify just as he’s unilaterally delayed the employer mandate? The fact that the legalization of illegal immigrants comes first makes it all the more likely that enforcement provisions will be ignored the same way they were after passage of the 1986 amnesty.

Marco Rubio says he doesn’t want to have to come back ten years from now and deal with the same illegal-immigration problem. But that’s exactly what the CBO says will happen under his own bill. According to the CBO analysis of the bill, it will reduce illegal immigration by as little as a third or by half at most. By one estimate, this means there will be about 7.5 million illegal immigrants here in ten years. And this is under the implausible assumption that the Obama administration would administer the law as written.

The bill’s changes in legal immigration are just as ill considered. Everyone professes to agree that our system should be tilted toward high-skilled immigration, but the Gang of Eight bill unleashes a flood of additional low-skilled immigration. The last thing low-skilled native and immigrant workers already here should have to deal with is wage-depressing competition from newly arriving workers. Nor is the new immigration under the bill a panacea for the long-term fiscal ills of entitlements, as often argued, because those programs are redistributive and most of the immigrants will be low-income workers.

Finally, there is the sheer size of the bill and the hasty manner in which it was amended and passed. Conservatives have eloquently and convincingly made the case against bills like this during the Obama years. Such bills reflect a mistaken belief in central planning and in practice become a stew of deals, payoffs, waivers, and special-interest breaks. Why would House Republicans now sign off on this kind of lawmaking? If you think Obamacare and Dodd-Frank are going swimmingly, you’ll love the Gang of Eight bill. It’s the opposite of conservative reform, which simplifies and limits government, strengthens the rule of law, and empowers citizens.

There’s no rush to act on immigration. The Democrats didn’t do anything when they controlled all of the elected branches in 2009 and 2010. The Gang of Eight tells us constantly that we have a de facto amnesty for illegal immigrants now. Fine. What’s the urgent need to act immediately, then?

The Republicans eager to back the bill are doing so out of political panic. “I think Republicans realize the implications for the future of the Republican party in America if we don’t get this issue behind us,” John McCain says. This is silly. Are we supposed to believe that Republican Senate candidates running in states such as Arkansas, North Carolina, Iowa, Virginia, and Montana will be hurt if the party doesn’t embrace Chuck Schumer’s immigration bill?

If Republicans take the Senate and hold the House in 2014, they will be in a much better position to pass a sensible immigration bill. At the presidential level in 2016, it would be better if Republicans won more Hispanic voters than they have in the past—but it’s most important that the party perform better among working-class and younger voters concerned about economic opportunity and upward mobility. Passing this unworkable, ramshackle bill is counterproductive or irrelevant to that task.

House Republicans may wish to pass incremental changes to the system to show that they have their own solutions, even though such legislation is very unlikely to be taken up by the Senate. Or they might not even bother, since Senate Democrats say such legislation would be dead on arrival. In any case, House Republicans should make sure not to allow a conference with the Senate bill. House Republicans can’t find any true common ground with that legislation. Passing any version of the Gang of Eight’s bill would be worse public policy than passing nothing. House Republicans can do the country a service by putting a stake through its heart.

— William Kristol is editor of The Weekly Standard. Rich Lowry is editor of National Review.

Most Latinos want border security before legalization of illegals already here. And why wouldn't they? Same for Blacks. Why would anyone in their right mind like having waves upon waves of people dragging down wages and competing with workers already here? Unless of course they were employers taking advantage of these "undocumented" workers, including those who knowingly hire them as nannies, housekeepers, etc. Or are Dem politicians who want more voters. Or are Repub politicians bribed by the business interests who exploit these workers and screw the rest of us over.

Republicans are too bribed, too stupid, or too timid to take advantage of this opportunity. Coulter is correct. No deal. Secure the border then we figure out the rest later. The Bushies need to go back to Texas and stay there. While you're at it take Rove with you. Rubio get your advice from Cruz, not the imperial DC crowd.

Check out these poll numbers. Laraza or whatever they are called don't speak for most Latinos.

Referring to Obamacare in the Constitutional Law thread: "what is the legality and constitutionality of the Obama administration unilaterally picking and choosing which laws to enforce and which programs to implement?"

Now over to immigration...

The point of comprehensive reform is that two sides want two different things, and both sides need to concede one to get the other. But in the context of Obama chutzpah and power to unilaterally pick and choose what parts of what laws to implement or enforce, hasn't the entire concept of 'comprehensive' reform been permanently destroyed?

Referring to Obamacare in the Constitutional Law thread: "what is the legality and constitutionality of the Obama administration unilaterally picking and choosing which laws to enforce and which programs to implement?"

Now over to immigration...

The point of comprehensive reform is that two sides want two different things, and both sides need to concede one to get the other. But in the context of Obama chutzpah and power to unilaterally pick and choose what parts of what laws to implement or enforce, hasn't the entire concept of 'comprehensive' reform been permanently destroyed?

Tom Cotton: It's the House Bill or Nothing on ImmigrationWhat's to stop President Obama from refusing to enforce the Senate bill's border-security promises?

America is a nation of immigrants, but we're also a nation of laws, and the U.S. immigration system should respect both traditions. Unfortunately, the Senate immigration bill undermines the rule of law without solving the country's illegal-immigration problem, and it will harm American workers. The House of Representatives will reject any proposal with the Senate bill's irreparably flawed structure, which is best described as: legalization first, enforcement later . . . maybe.

This basic design flaw repeats the mistake of the 1986 amnesty law, which, according to former Attorney General Edwin Meese, President Reagan considered the biggest mistake of his presidency. The Senate bill ensures, as did the 1986 law, that we'll have full legalization but little-to-no enforcement.

The Senate bill's advocates argue that its implementation of enforcement measures, such as extending the security fence on the border with Mexico, will precede and be a "trigger" for opening a path to citizenship. But these advocates are conflating legalization and citizenship. America has approximately 12 million illegal immigrants, who chiefly desire the right to live and work here legally. The Senate bill legalizes them a mere six months after enactment.

In the bill, legalization comes with trivial preconditions. Pay a "fine"? Yes, but it's less than $7 per month and can be waived. Pay back taxes? Only if a tax lien has already been filed, which will be rare for undocumented work. Pass a criminal-background check? Yes, with a gaping exception allowed for illegal immigrants with up to two misdemeanors—or more, if the convictions occurred on the same day—even if these were pleaded down from felony offenses and included serious offenses such as domestic violence and drunken driving.

This approach is unjust and counterproductive. We should welcome the many foreigners patiently obeying our laws and waiting overseas to immigrate legally. Instead, the Senate bill's instant, easy legalization rewards lawbreakers and thus encourages more illegal immigration.

What's worse, the bill's illusory enforcement mechanisms won't stop this illegal immigration. Effective enforcement requires a border fence, a visa-tracking system to catch visa overstayers, and a workable employment-verification system. The Senate bill fails on all three fronts.

The Secure Fence Act of 2006 mandated 700 miles of fencing, but the Senate bill merely restates this long-ignored requirement without mentioning specs or locations. It also doesn't prohibit delay-inducing lawsuits from fence opponents. Further, the bill explicitly lets the secretary of Homeland Security decline to build a fence in a specific location if she decides it's not "appropriate."

Instead, the bill throws billions of dollars at the border for new border-patrol agents (though not until 2017) and sensor technologies. These solutions are complements, not substitutes, for a fence. When I was a soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan, my units relied on guards and technology to secure our bases, but the first line of defense was always a physical perimeter.

That's because fences work. The fence built in the San Diego border sector dramatically reduced border crossings there from 100,000 per year to just 5,000 per year when it was completed in 2006, a 95% drop. Earlier this year, Israel reduced illegal crossings at its Sinai border to two per month from 2,000 per month by completing a fence. Why doesn't the Senate bill mandate an effective fence? The answer, plainly, is that the intention is not to build one.

Similarly, the Senate bill restates a 17-year-old requirement in federal law that the government have a functioning visa-tracking system. But it delays implementation for six years and increases by millions the visas available for low-skill immigrants. This will lead to more illegal immigration by visa overstayers, while depressing wages for young and lower-skill Americans. The bill also delays implementation of the employment-verification system by at least five years and doesn't require mandatory effectiveness levels for the system.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recognizes that these enforcement measures will be largely ineffective. The CBO estimates that, even with them, annual illegal immigration will decline by only one-third to one-half compared with current projections. After 10 years, the CBO predicts, the illegal-immigrant population will have declined to only eight million from today's 12 million. So much for solving the problem. All we're doing is setting up the next amnesty.

But it's actually worse because even these modest enforcement measures likely won't happen. Any future Congress can defund these programs, as has happened too often. The bill grants enforcement discretion to the bureaucracy in hundreds of instances. Opponents can tie up the bill in court for years, which would block implementation of key enforcement measures but not the path to citizenship. This is exactly what happened with the 1986 law: legalization now and enforcement never.

And what's to stop President Obama from refusing to enforce this law? After all, he just announced he won't enforce ObamaCare's employer mandate because of complaints from big business. If that's his attitude toward his biggest legislative accomplishment, imagine what he'll do when big business complains about, say, an employment-verification system he never wanted to begin with.

If enforcement fails, what's more likely: that legalized persons won't become citizens or that future Congresses will simply relax or eliminate the required "triggers"? If past is prologue, we know the answer.

Given all this history, the American people rightly doubt that the government will finally enforce immigration laws. Thus the best solution is to abandon the Senate bill's flawed framework and proceed with an enforcement-first approach that assures Americans that the border is secure and immigration laws are being enforced. The House is already pursuing that goal with committee-approved bills such as the Legal Workforce Act, which expedites the employment-verification system, and the SAFE Act, which empowers local and state law-enforcement officers to enforce immigration laws.

If the full House approves such bills, they should be sent directly to the Senate for consideration. They should not be handed to a conference committee so that they can be reconciled with the Senate bill—the Senate and House measures are irreconcilable. Instead, the Senate must choose whether it wants common-sense, confidence-building immigration legislation this year.

If the Senate insists on the legalization-first approach, then no bill will be enacted. Meanwhile, the House will remain focused on addressing ObamaCare, the economy and the national debt—which, after all, Americans overwhelmingly regard as higher priorities than immigration reform.

Rep. Tom Cotton is a rising star and has this about right. The House needs to pass a very good bill and stand by it. After borders are secured, legalization and new immigration policy can stand on its own merits and political will. The Senate should recognize that as a good bill but they won't. The standoff will no doubt go into the 2014 congressional races.

"what's to stop President Obama from refusing to enforce this law? After all, he just announced he won't enforce ObamaCare's employer mandate because of complaints from big business."

That is an inescapable point made here yesterday. [More famous people caught reading the forum?]

Schumer OK with House piecemeal immigration approachSen. Chuck Schumer said he'd support the Republican-led House's piecemeal approach to U.S. immigration reform, provided it offered a path to citizenship. "We would much prefer a big comprehensive bill, but any way that the House can get there is OK by us," the New York Democrat told CNN. "I actually am optimistic that we will get this done."

WASHINGTON—Every Democrat voted for the Senate's immigration bill when it passed the chamber in June. That unanimous party support isn't likely to be replicated if the House votes on its own immigration effort this fall.

In the GOP-controlled House, some Democrats, largely from conservative-leaning districts, are set to bolster the ranks of Republican lawmakers skeptical of the Senate's ideas on immigration. As a small faction within the minority party, they won't likely sway key votes, but amid signs that momentum behind the effort might be flagging, their concerns could put the finish line further out of reach.

Lawmakers Weigh Aggressive Tactic

Like many of their GOP counterparts, hesitant House Democrats worry about how to handle the 11 million illegal immigrants already living in the U.S.

"I'm opposed to granting amnesty," said Rep. Nick Rahall, a Democrat from West Virginia, whose grandparents legally emigrated to the U.S. from Lebanon. Creating a separate way this group can gain citizenship "would siphon scarce resources away from our already-overwhelmed immigration system and would be unfair to those other immigrants, past and present, who have dutifully waited for their turn to legally enter our country," he said.

Some House Democrats fret that any new immigration laws could repeat what they consider the mistakes of a 1986 law that legalized many illegal immigrants and included measures to stop illegal crossings.

"I want to be certain that it's not 1986 all over again," said Rep. Daniel Lipinski, a Democrat from Illinois, who said he's concerned some lawmakers might be willing in future negotiations to roll back the provisions to beef up border security, which were added to the Senate bill in a bid to win GOP support. "I have concerns about if the federal government will be serious about enforcing immigration law in the future," he said.

The exact number of resistant or fence-sitting House Democrats on immigration is hard to determine. Like many Republicans, some centrist Democrats are reluctant to stake out a firm position before the House strategy is set. House leaders have yet to unveil a bill tackling the issue of legalization, though senior GOP lawmakers are expected to introduce legislation this fall that could include granting citizenship to at least a portion of the population.

"I'm going to wait and see what they come up with and then I'll decide,' said Rep. Collin Peterson (D., Minn.), who said Congress needs to come up with a plan to "regularize" immigrants in some fashion. "We're not going to deport them."

The ranks of centrist Democrats in the House have thinned in recent years. The fiscally conservative coalition of Blue Dog Democrats, which played a major role in the health-care debate, has shrunk to just 15 lawmakers, compared with 54 before the 2010 election. Advocates of a broad immigration overhaul, including a new path to citizenship, are targeting the remaining Blue Dogs and the New Democrats, a House coalition of self-described moderate lawmakers.

Earlier this month, 39 of the New Democrats' 53 lawmakers wrote a letter to House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio), urging him to introduce an immigration bill before the end of September that includes a pathway to citizenship. But some of the group's members, including Rep. John Barrow, a conservative Democrat from Georgia who didn't sign the letter, may still need convincing.

Any such discussion shouldn't begin until employer-verification programs and border security have been strengthened, Mr. Barrow said. "Like a preacher friend of mine once said, the main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing," he said.

Advocates on both sides of the debate predict Democrats in swing districts will have a tough time embracing any immigration bill unless Republicans first come out in support. Some House Democrats have said their constituents are wary of broad immigration overhaul.

Centrist Democratic think tank Third Way recently targeted Democratic waverers in a memo offering suggestions for what to say if they shift on the issue, including emphasizing the economic effects of an immigration overhaul and the Senate bill's strengthening of border security.

Roy Beck, president of Numbers USA, an organization favoring tough immigration curbs, sees a tougher road ahead. "Any Democrat in a district that Romney carried is going to really have a reason to vote against this," he said.

This is from 2006. IIRC most of the images therein are from a huge Cinco de Mayo (May 5) rally in Los Angeles. The reaction to the massive display of Mexican flags and accompanying anti-American attitudes enraged many and since the the rallies have made a point of waving American flags , , , as they continue to demand unlimited illegal and legal immigration and calling any one who opposes a racist, etc. There's no particular reason for my posting it now, it happened to cross my desk and I put it here as part of the record of this subject.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Tuesday that stalled immigration reform would be a top priority once the fiscal crisis has been resolved.

"Once that's done, you know, the day after, I'm going to be pushing to say, call a vote on immigration reform," he told the Los Angeles affiliate of Spanish-language television network Univision.

The president's domestic agenda has been sidetracked in his second term by one problem after another. As he coped with the revelation of domestic surveillance programs, chemical weapons in Syria, and a fiscal battle that has shut down the U.S. government and threatens a debt default, immigration has been relegated to the back burner.

But Obama, who won re-election with overwhelming Hispanic backing, had hoped to make reforms easing the plight of the 11 million immigrants who are in the United States illegally.

In June, the Senate passed an immigration overhaul, but House of Representatives Republicans are divided over the granting of legal status to those in the country illegally, a step many see as rewarding lawbreakers.

Although the president had sought comprehensive reform, he said last month he would be open to the House taking a piece-by-piece approach if that would get the job done.

Obama on Tuesday blamed House Speaker John Boehner for preventing immigration from coming up for a vote.

"We had a very strong Democratic and Republican vote in the Senate," he said. "The only thing right now that's holding it back is, again, Speaker Boehner not willing to call the bill on the floor of the House of Representatives."

Boehner said the sweeping Senate bill would not pass the House and has said the lower chamber would tackle the issue in smaller sections that would include stricter provisions on border protection.

Why do I have to supplement their education? I know a lot of New Jerseyens feel the same way. No one ever asks us. Just shoved down our throats by politicians bribing for votes and a Democrat party looking for power. Always at my expense. And how dare anyone use the phrase "anchor baby". How dare we?

N.J. bill to offer in-state tuition, financial aid to immigrants in the country illegally gains momentum

DREAM_act_photo.JPG

Giancarlo Tello, an undocumented immigrant who came to New Jersey from Peru with his parents at age 6, pays out-of-state tuition at Rutgers-Newark. Tello, the campaign chair for New Jersey United Students' Tuition Equity for DREAMers, today joined advocates to push for a bill to offer in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants who went to high school in New Jersey. (Matt Friedman/The Star-Ledger) (Matt Friedman/The Star-Ledger)

TRENTON — After a decade-long effort by advocates, a bill that would charge in-state tuition to undocumented immigrants who grew up in New Jersey appears well on its way to landing on the governor’s desk.

The state Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee today voted eight to three with one abstention to approve the measure (S2479), which advocates say will affect tens of thousands of New Jersey residents.

“This community has waited long enough. Let’s not look for excuses to say no. Let’s look for reasons to say yes,” said Senate President Stephen Sweeney (D-Gloucester), who has lent his name to the bill as a prime sponsor.

The bill now heads for a vote in the full Senate on Monday, where it’s expected to pass. Assembly leaders say they expect to pass it soon as well.

Under the bill, undocumented immigrants who attended high school in New Jersey for three or more years, graduated, and filed an affidavit saying they plan to legalize their immigration status as soon as legally possible would be able to get lower in-state tuition rates at New Jersey’s public colleges and universities.

The undocumented immigrant students would also be eligible for state financial aid under the Senate version of the bill. Incoming Assembly Speaker Vincent Prieto (D-Hudson), a Cuban immigrant, said today that he expects the Assembly version will incorporate that aspect — which had been part of a separate bill —as well.

Advocates said it doesn’t make sense for the state to provide K-12 education to undocumented students — which federal law requires — and then refuse to treat them the same as citizens once they graduate.

“After having educated these students from kindergarten through twelfth grade, what purpose does it serve to penalize them by not allowing them to better themselves?” said Frank Argote-Freyre, president of the Latino Action Network.

In-state tuition is available to undocumented immigrants in 16 other states.

Giancarlo Tello, 23, immigrated to New Jersey from Peru when he was six years old. He didn’t find out he was undocumented until his sophomore year in high school, when his mother told him he could not apply for a driver’s license. Now, he attends Rutgers-Newark part-time and pays out-of-state tuition.

“If you consider me a fellow resident of New Jersey, if you believe I deserve an education, a chance at the future, then I urge you all to vote yes on this bill,” Tello told the committee.

Three elected officials from cities with large Hispanic populations — Jersey City Mayor Steve Fulop, Perth Amboy Mayor Wilda Diaz and Plainfield Mayor Adrian Mapp — were also in Trenton to push for the bill.

“We all agree that in order to break that cycle of poverty that exists in this country and exists in places like Jersey City, it really starts with investing in education,” Fulop said at a press conference before the committee meeting. “To invest in a child’s education K through 12 and then turn your back on them is really foolish.”

All eight Democrats on the committee voted in favor of the legislation. And Gov. Chris Christie — while refusing to answer detailed questions about the bill — has indicated he supports the idea. Nevertheless, three out of the committee’s four Republicans voted no, while one abstained.

State Sen. Jennifer Beck (R-Monmouth) said she abstained because a loophole in the bill could allow out-of-state residents – regardless of their immigration status – to qualify for in-state tuition if they attend private high school in New Jersey. She also said New Jersey residents could move to other states for years, then return and qualify for in-state tuition because they went to high school here.

“I don’t want to vote against the bill. I’m just going to abstain today and hopefully by the time we get to the floor Monday we can find a resolution for those two issues,” Beck said.

But state Sen. Joseph Pennacchio (R-Morris), who voted no, said he didn’t think it would be fair that “a struggling family of American citizens in a neighboring state would pay more than an undocumented student.”

Only one member of the public testified against the bill. Pat DeFilippis, a New Jersey representative for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, read a letter from the organization’s state and local director, Dale Wilcox.

“Many New Jersey schools, colleges and universities are experiencing severe budget shortages as a result of the weakened economy and the state debt crisis,” read the letter, which was addressed to Christie. “Granting in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens would only serve to further damage and strain delicate budgets and impose additional burdens on New Jersey taxpayers.”

Christie's action on the bill is uncertain. He worked hard to appeal to Hispanic voters and won 51 percent of their votes in his re-election last week, according to exit polls.

State Sen. Teresa Ruiz (D-Essex), a prime sponsor of the bill, said the governor had not disclosed to her any decision on the measure.

This story has been edited to reflect the correct bill number. It's S2479, not S2468

"If they want to chop that thing up into five pieces, as long as all five pieces get done, I don't care what it looks like," Mr. Obama said. "What we don't want to do is simply carve out one piece of it…but leave behind some of the tougher stuff that still needs to get done."

Any chance that his lips are moving, but what is coming out isn't the whole truth?